Skip to main content
7:00 am
it means for u.s. and china relations and a preview of president obama's trip to cambodia, thailand. your e-mails are live, next. of >> good morning.. the u.s. capitol after returning to washington for three days congress is out for the thanksgiving hall day, but back next week to work on the so-called fiscal cliff. the president in thailand. first stop in a three nation southeast asian tour and as part of the debate over the debt and government programs include social security, medicare and medicaid. aarp saying social security and
7:01 am
medicare should not be cut as part of the debate over the 16 trillion over all debt. we'll get your thoughts our phone lines are open at (202) 737-0001 and (202) 737-0002 for republicans if you're an independent. (202) 628-0205, 3382 i'm sorry. headlines on this sunday morning. flames of rage. israel shoots down hamas missiles and we'll have more on this late in the program and the calculating the cliff. cover of cq weekly. republicans are talking about higher taxes as the president presses issue. and then there's this story from the "washington post". headline. aarp flexes muscle in debt talks the lo big power house for older
7:02 am
americans last year made a doctor make it a concession amid a national debate over where overhauling national security. the group said it was open the cuts in benefits. liberal groups that apposed changes was enormous and this time around as washington debates how to tame the debt, aarp is flat lay posed to any benefit reduction. rejection of any significant changes to the safety net could be a major factor as policy making seeking a deal to put the government's finances in order through raising taxes and cutting spending possibly the popular entitlement as medicare and social securitys news makers at ten and 7:00 eastern on the west coast. the current head of the financial services roundtable. he weighed in on all of this on a program we taped on fried.
7:03 am
>> from a business standpoint there's been some concerns about this being a cost burden on small and medium sized businesss so we'll see but the fact of the matter now is with the president's re-election and at least one of the two of the main court challenges having been resolved it is a reality so people have to make they're decisions about how to implement it. but from an economic standpoint the so could experts give mixed reviews whether it'll be annette drag or plus from medium size businesses they're worried about it. >> governor, beyond the fiscal cliff another thing coming for congress is the debt limit. treasurer estimated we'll hit tate end of the of year and have to extend it in 2013. that something should be wrapped in a fiscal cliff deal or would you like to see that separately. given the fight of the last congress you hoping we have less
7:04 am
drama this time around? >> hope so. in light of the negotiations over in the fiscal cliff it would seem common sense to just include that is a part of the larger deal and discussion. it is going to have to beacon fronted and addressed. a mathematical certainty it'll be hit but while it's uncomfortable it puts pressure on policy makes to take some action and that could be a helpful tool if it's not taken too far. >> you made some comments suggesting maybe that congress shouldn't raise the debt ceiling but this time around you think it should be dealt with promptly and quickly? >> policy makers need dead lines and pressure because if they don't have that, things drift and this is a fork in the road for them. lifting of the debt ceiling. again it's mathematically going to be hit. there's no question about that. is pressure point that you can
7:05 am
use but i would advise them if i gave them advice to wrap it in the discussion about the fiscal cliff. >> former republican governor and republican candidate joining us on news makers at 10:00 eastern time. one part of the overall debate about the so-called fiscal cliff and debt and deficit. aarp flexes muscle after the back/the group no longer faye investoring benefit reductions for retirees. let me go back to the story focusing on what's next for democrats and republicans. this piece focusing on redefining republican, gop's devotion of pledges of no new taxes comes into question after a lost election. fiscal cliff forces party to consider a compromise. this piece points out there's no time for contemplation here at the edge of washington's fiscal cliff as republicans like john
7:06 am
baner have not months or weeks but days to decide if they overturn decades of party orthodox and tax increases to head off something worse across the board spending cuts and tax increases that could throw the economy into a recession. look at the overall debt in excess of 16 trillion dollars. part of the debate whether or not social security and medicare should be on the table. seed on the phone from buzzard's bay. republican line. >> good morning. steve, we've got so many groups and caucus they're all saying now you have your it's time for me to have mine. once that group gets what they want the next group says, well the first two got what they want and this is what we want. this, i don't see this ending. it's very sad situation and unfortunately i don't see much of a future as long as we have
7:07 am
all these groups and caucuses. can i give you constructive criticism. i've been watching c-span now for decades and especially "washington journal". if i don't see it live i'll watch the tape. the new gentlemen you had on twice last week as a moderator on friday and before spends too much time reading newspaper. i'm not saying that some of the articles aren't pertinent but much too much time is spent when he's reading the newspaper and people are not able to get through. >> ed thanks for watching and being a loyal viewer and listener. of course you can check out this program anytime at there's a perspective as the chart saying yep the federal government is stillen ensure wensurer.
7:08 am
accounting for nearly 68%. the rest 32% is everything else. on the phone from ten see. good morning to you. democrat line. >> good morning. congress is the one that's blocking everything. they trying to make the democrats look bad but see the selection over. if they don't to talk about cutting social security and medicaid. people are working every day and social security is not going broke if they want to start cutting something. cut their salaries and take their insurance and let them see how they make it. see what they don't have insurance. look at themselves time for the hate to stop and work for the american people because the election is coming from them and they are going to lose. goodbye. >> let me go back to courtesys to michael fletcher and zachary
7:09 am
at the "washington post". aarp an opposes to raising the age of medicare cost while it will drive up premium costs for older people. living increase which is i said would cost older seniors thousands of dollars a year many benefits and critics say it's looking out for current as the expense of future generations. whether or not you think social security and medicare specifically should be on the table as congress tries to deal with the fiscal cliff as a way to bring down the deficit. promising to trim the over all debt by 4 trillion dollars. ed on the phone. massachusetts. republican level. good morning. >> regarding the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling i think what they should do is have the federal reserve and the treasury
7:10 am
getting to and wave a magic wand over in the 1.6 trillion dollars worth of treasury securities the fed holds and reduce the outstanding debt that way because this is debt that the fed acquired through the quantitative easing programs and it's debt that the government owes itself that the treasury pays interest on the fed the fed has been earning that. about 80 billion a year and just simply remit that back to the treasury so. it's - it's debt that the government owes itself that shouldn't even apply to the debt ceiling. if they reduce that amount it would give policy makers about a year's worth of breathing space to someone better solution. >> what about social security raising the requirement or mean's testing? >> that is a longer solution but i'm saying right now they are
7:11 am
press i pressing - they're ready to go over in the fiscal cliff like thelma and luis and they don't have time to come up with intelligent policy response so. what they should do is, make this debt go away, which they can. it's not a problem, really because the fed holds it. it's not - it's debt the government owes itself. 1.6 trillion in treasury securities and they can come up with more intelligent growth policy rather than cutting everyone and raises taxes. >> stacy says everyone must make sacrifices. social is running surplus and could be modified later but medicare must be dealt with now. our question whether or not you think medicare and social security should be on the table for the larger discussion in washington especially next year come together bringing down the
7:12 am
over all debt and deficit. independent line? >> i agree with that one lady. they need to cut their pay because congress already has too many aids. those guys are in there for years and they shouldn't get a retirement. it's a service not a job. the last guy talking about the federal reserve, you guys need an economist. i want to know if it's something for congress to talk about. our dollars are not backed by goefld of franks are not backed by gold. none of this is. they've created this fiscal cliff for themselves because if we went to gold standards we'd have a problem. this money is printed just a way to get control of the global market. that's the problem right there. you need an economist to tell us what would - what's the problem? if we go back to gold standard that would solve it and just like the last gentlemen said it's money we owe ourselves.
7:13 am
it's all a picture. if nobody holds any of this money. china, or france and nobody holds it, i don't understand so i don't know why they want to cut on social security because we earned that money and ronald reagan raised the age and that gave this this surplus and they robbed it out of there. >> thanks. nathaniel says in my opinion if we're going to cut the first thing to go is foreign aid. well there's another spending item. front page of the "washington post" dealing with the military. headline. four star lifestyle. points out the scandal involving david a try us has prompted new scrutiny of the general's lifestyle. the overseeing of troops around the world and these people enjoy perks.
7:14 am
palatial homes and people to track their schedule and these with the jump page article the fog of more. do perks collar generals with a photograph of general a try us that would have been the equivalent of a presidential motorcade and then another one on dwight eisenhower on the 17th hole in scotland and the perks given to generals in the army and navy. admirals in the navy and others in the u.s. military. william from florida. democrat line. good morning. >> good morning. yes. i'll say instead of cutting entitlements like social security or medicaid. with social security, it's one of those things that they've taken money from so why should they cut social security and
7:15 am
again when you think about it. we have 51 states. how come we have 437 something people representing 51 states? i think we should cut down the congress before anything else, and then we start on the our stuff. thank you. >> thanks for the call. john in north carolina twitter saying running surplus like every ponzi scheme does at first. political note from the "new york times". former aid to winning a full term after winning a special election. this is a photograph of former congresswoman giffords and later resigned to win on to win the special election back in june and he defeated his republican opponent. who was a retired air force colonel by a margin of 1402 votes. election was declared bow razor
7:16 am
thin victory over district in arizona that will remain in democratic hands. take a look at 1935. franklind roosevelt part of his new deal focusing on social security after passing both the house and the senate. fdr signing the bill into law. >> today, a hope of many years standing is in large part fulfilled. civilization of the past hundred years with it's startling industrial changes have tended more and more to make life insecure. young people have come to wonder, what will be their lot when they came to old age? the man with a job has wondered, how long the job would last. this social security measure gives at least some protection
7:17 am
to 50 millions of our citizens. who will reap direct benefits through unemployment compensation through old age pensions and through increase services for the protection of children and prevention of ill health. we can never ensure 100 percent of the population against 100% of the hazards and we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty stricken old age. seems to me that the senate and the house of representatives in this long and argeous section have done nothing more than pass this security bill.
7:18 am
social security act. the session would be regarded as historic for all-time. >> that was back in 1935 when fdr signed the bill to law. generations relying now on social security for retirement benefits. this is from jason cochrak saying social security can be funded indefinitely by lifting the cap on fica so the wealthy can pay their fair share. aarp says it won't support increase in raising the retirement age or means test original medicare. let me read to you one republican response from representative hey worth from new york who has spoke when the aarp and she wishs the organization would talk more to it's members anticipate challenges with entitlement programs. i think it's important to have a mature conversation so we understand the challenges we
7:19 am
face going forward in 25 years spending on medicare and medicaid is projected to equal 10% of the economy double the current percentage over the same time, social security spending expected to rise from 5% of the size of the economy to six % as a result of the retirement of baby boomers and 10,000 retirees. impacting. oscar is weighing in from tampa florida. >> good morning and thank you for taking my call. >> certainly. go ahead, you're on the air, oscar. >> thank you for taking my call. i just want to say that i'm really worried because we have a area elected president but i don't know why every time i see him on t.v., like he always in campaign and he's rushing for
7:20 am
his ideas through too quickly. he did it a first time when he got the first time and i just want to send a message to john brenner that this time to be strong there and you know, bring the ideas and getting to and see what is best for the country. but the person that is always rushing and he even said he got the pen ready to sign everything but i don't think it's a good idea to rush this stuff. i think we have to pay more tax. we have to do it for the country but just trying to take money and i don't think is right because there's so many companies that are going to give lay-off's and all that stuff and it's not good for the country. >> thanks for the call. >> from our twitter page. sorry but thanks to obama we owe
7:21 am
an extra trillion dollars. we have to cut geezer welfare to pay for them. maryland, democrat line. >> thank you. i'm a first time caller actually and thank you and also i listen all the time on c-span radio. i wanted to put in a plug for your app. it's great and listen all the time. >> you heard on xm channel 119. >> great. okay. i wanted to say i think it's - as a democrat and this may be little unusual, i think it's unfortunate that aarp is taking this position. i think it's going to end up divide people more along generational lines. rather than fair partisan lines. realistically looking at the long-term and maybe generationx folks like myself.
7:22 am
we have to take a bit of a different perspective on this and i think there is a chance we'll have to raise the age for benefits but also means tests social security at some point and look at it as an insurance program and say you know, i don't know what the cut off plan would be but if you earn about 400,000 dollars a year or some high amount depending where you live. may be different in new york verses kansas city but at point social security should kick in but someone making 400,000 dollars a year clearly doesn't need it. that's my comments. >> thank you and our app is available for mobile device. you can get to c-span radio at c-span the headline from the working on the post. aarp flexing muscle in talks saying it doesn't want to raise the social security age and we
7:23 am
ask if you think this should be part of a larger discussion as congress deals not only with the fiscal cliff but the looming debt and deficit and now approaching 16-point 7 trillion dollars. congress out this week for the thanksgiving holiday returning next monday and tuesday. chris from virginia. republican line. good morning. >> i thought that throwing my two cents on this. every discussion and every editorial that i read in the major papers talks about either cutting spending or raising taxes and i think one of the pieces and it's a big piece is this problem is not being discussed pretty much anywhere and that's selling assets. the federal government controls billions, billions. maybe trillions of dollars in assets and i know that when you or i or normal people trying to make ends meet, you feel things.
7:24 am
you sell things. i had to sell my t.v. in college to make rent one time. it's unfortunate we don't hear those ideas and it pigeon holds people into being either raising taxes or cutting spending. i say let's sell assets and maybe have the government restrict what i can and can't do. >> thanks for the call. al from new york. independent line. thanks for waiting. >> good morning. steve, how you doing? >> fine thank you. >> i say absolutely not. i plan to retire this coming year at 65. my wife is 54 and she is - she's afraid she's going to have some of her benefits cut just because even though she was part of the baby boomers she was born in 1957 instead of 1948 like me. my suggestion is, one, take the
7:25 am
cap off of the income tax. to fund not only social security but medicare. medicare is costing a lot of money because insurance companies charge a lot of money in retirement homes for basic necessities of medicine and care. i say if we're going to start cutting, first of all the politicians, probably both parties are, have taken an oath to the american people and their constituents but republicans have been but i willed by norquist into not raising tax. that is a pledge. pledge - i can pledge you a million dollars and not pay you a dime. so the pledge to me is false. also, i think maybe it's time that we start really eyeballing the perks that these upper echelon general's and we
7:26 am
graduate hundreds of them potential again rals every year from the academies and they get an awful lot for most of them end up is a pencil pushers. they're administrators like the ceo type. so back to social security and medicare cuts, it's always been conservative holy grail to start chipping away at that. that's what they started doing back when a great president roosevelt implementing it. >> al, thanks for the call just outside new york city. you referred this in the "washington post". the four star lifestyle prompting critique of again rals perks. extensive story of what members of the senior military receive as part of compensation if nothing done about the fiscal cliff wouldn't take long for congress to fix the tax rate or
7:27 am
new tax code and fromcq weekly. redefining republican the larger debate on how to deal with all the red inc. any idea of rethinking the republican proposition on fiscal issues would go against 20 years of parties tax increases that absolutism has fed the partiesen a broad range of issues with stricted a he remembers to fiscal conversion verytive. some say that mean this can be open to other new ideas. thinking part of this over all debate is whether or not to raise the retirement age as a way to bring on the debt. democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. steve and fellow folks. there were a couple of - i'm against that any reduction of issues with benefits. and there was - at the library
7:28 am
of congress there's a couple of things going on that relate to this at the civil war exhibit, there was a phrase that lincoln - he said in lincoln's view the present conflict was ultimately a people's contest. this was made on april 15th 1861. testing whether or not a government based on the consent of the governed could serve out the domestic discord and that relates to what all this is going on about the have and have knots from 2020 vision about full spectrum of domination of the military back in 2000 and the archives with the exhibit of the cuban missile crisis. there was a phrase the knot of war and we're twisting and pulling that rope on really the
7:29 am
common people. not the profits of the banks and offshore banks but pulling that knot on our whole body and our existence and just enjoying our time here. and that's, that information pulling that knot of that rope to disseminate and get to the truth of the issue and i think that's that. >> thanks for the call from alexandria virginia. charlie has this point. adjust the social cap. not the age. working folks are wearing out. president reagan messed with the age issue. well yesterday in iowa. with an aye on 2016 weighing in on the current debt and deficit negotiations on what congress needs to be doing. here's more from that live here on c-span. >> we start with a simple
7:30 am
notion. the way to turn our economy around is not by making rich people poorer but poor people richer. that's how we move our country forward. [applause] and it starts number one with economic growth. what can government do at the federal level to get the economy growing again. look at your government here in iowa. how about dealing with debt so you don't have one? [applause] how about tax rates that generate the revenue but are not so high people are afraid to invest in your economy moving forward. regulatory that takes in the cost of regulation and not just the theoretical benefits of those. how about investment in energy policy not just energy politics. >> the senator was in florida for a birthday celebration and
7:31 am
he talked on the presidential campaigns. if you missed his speech it's available at other headlines from the chicago tribune. 25 years after the death of harold washington. are black chicagoans better off? this from the baltimore sun. something we're seeing a lot more of in major metropolitan areas. fast money. cameras are plentiful and profitable but are they accurate and reliable. baltimore sun. the richmond times focuses on the international story is expanding air strikes and hamas levelled in ga savment back to policy issues whether or not medicare and medicaid in social security should be all part of the discussion in terms of bringing down the nation's debt. bob. north carolina good morning.
7:32 am
republican line. caller: good morning. i would like to point out whenever somebody you know suggests privatizeing the social security system. demonize this push and go people in wheelchairs over a cliff. and in fact, in galveston where they opted out they're doing much better under a private system than social security. >> thanks for the call. this from one of the viewers saying every time we give congress more money after they spent what they were supposed to save for social security and medicaid we enable them. independent line? caller: good morning. my social security they should leave it alone. everyone that's supposed to pay. there's a flat rate you have to pay. people at the bottom have to pay theirs. the people at the top don't have to pay all theirs.
7:33 am
they paid in why should they? so same thing with taxes. why does the people in the upper class get cuts and loopholes and the people at the bottom get nothing. they're money goes out the door and they don't get it going out. best government money can buy. thank you. host: vivian said why is the country not nearly as rich as we are can afford to cover every citizen's healthcare. david. good morning. caller: i'd like to say thank you for c-span. my opinion is that i think that they should have no limit on the social security tax and also that the money that they already stole from us should be put back into it. i think they got other corporations that should shipped over seas. >> okay. aarp out with an ad focusing on
7:34 am
all this. american association of advancement says they don't want to touch social security and medicare is part of the debt debate the latest 30 second spot. >> you've worked hard you're entire life. paid your dues and raised a family. you've earned a little peace of mind. now some in congress want to make harmful cuts cutting your benefits so washington can pay it's bills. aarp believes the country can do better and cut wasteful spending without cutting benefits you've earned. tell congress to stop the harmful cuts to medicare and social security. >> part of the over all debate in a couple of moments. headlines from "washington post". the gaza clash widens with photographs of what many are calling the iron dome as israeli forces trying to stop the
7:35 am
missiles. they wide ten gaza assault hitting government targets and "wall street journal". levinson writing new arab leaders are involved in negotiations. thanks for being with us. guest: pleasure. host: first give us an assessment of what you're seeing and feeling in side israel? host: there's relay hot of shock to seetharaman the sirens going off in tel aviv and jerusalem. first time it's happened since 1991. and jerusalem since a long time. that's been certainly and the area around gaza is basically frozen. like they were frozen at the time. you know, there's also been a lot of, you know you can't
7:36 am
forget the impact of the iron dome and the years it's had on the conflict. it shot down over 80% of the rockets targeted towards urban areas of israel. there's 300 rockets that haven't hit inability up areas and you can think what a different course if they had hit in the urban areas. tel aviv for all the sirens i haven't seen a rocket hit. host: your piece on how the arab leaders are trying to prevent this from escalating as we move into day five. who's specifically involved and what kind of bargaining do they have in negotiating with the israeli government to stop fighting with hamas and stopping the missiles? host: that's the big question. it's not new seeing governments to trying to pro meet seize fire
7:37 am
bits new is we have a bunch of new governments on the scene now. you have foreign minister for gaza yesterday and you have turkey and playing sort of central roles and new islamist democratic regime that are sort of playing the key central role in the region and we don't know what that means. they're trying cast themselves different than the old regimes and for both of them trying to show the difference. what's that mean? we just don't know if they have, one way they can make a difference is they can exert meaningful for sure on hamas and get hamas to do what they want for a seize fire that will be
7:38 am
productive. then it's almost, we don't know and that's what we're waiting to see. also, if there's going to take some meaningful defiance ambitious against israel. so far we haven't seen them do much more than talk about israel's offenses. but there's this peace treaty between israel and sort of the procurety. that doesn't seem in jeopardy? these are all questions playing out because we have not seen the governments in action since they came in power. host: morning paper full of scenes. as you point out in the story available at the "wall street journal" website. 40 palestinian dead. three israel is and what is hamas targeting? what parts of israel? >> well, hamas is rockets, aptly
7:39 am
doesn't have the ability to target as much accuracy and now especially when they're firing them in a rushed way because they want to get them set up and fired before israel has a chance to strike is very aggressive in trying to take out rockets before they lawn of their rockets so they're even less accurate. they're trying hit areas with the most impact that are the courts for hamas it would have been already a big - you know propaganda or perception that were able to reach tel aviv and jerusalem. it's something now. they've done something no one has done before and this is a photograph of the anti defense. host: what happens next as we move into a new week? guest: right now, we're waiting
7:40 am
to see what happens. we're sort of in between waiting to see if the israelis go ahead with the ground invasion or the efforts here for the cease fire proceed if you fire on that in the next few days or we'll see beside the go ahead with invasion in gaza. very influential whichever ways it goes. hamas could score a devastating hit in an area. host: from tel aviv mideast correspondent for the "wall street journal". thanks for joining us on this sunday. guest: thanks. host: focus on suzanne rice. dip flat on the rise. piece by mark lander focused she was playing stand in on the morning of september 16th
7:41 am
appearing on five sunday news programs a few days after the deadly attack in ben ga zo. she was drained after a hard week. mrs. rice delivered there now infamous reciting talking points supplied by intelligence agencies and said the siege appeared a spontaneous protest. in her sure footed ascend to the foreign policy ladder she appears poised to claim the top rung. she's the president's favorite it's said to be the favorite. she finds herself in the middle after bitter feud in which largely she's a bystander. there's an editorial. stop scapegoating suzanne rice inside the "washington post" op-ed page. larry from new york. republican line. back to your calls on the issue
7:42 am
of aarp saying don't raise the social security age and don't raise medicare. good morning. caller: how are you? i want to say everyone blames congress for the social security and medicare mess, but it's not - i mean, alright. harry reid if the democrats cut spending you know then we would have more money in medicare and social security and number one and two the presidents policies and regulations we're losing jobbed in this country so little more than half the country is paying for everybody else not working in this country. this country, politicians need to get their acts together because this country is sinking and sinking fast. host: medicare costs rise because there's no price controls from this writer. truman and nixon were socialist.
7:43 am
next irvine, kentucky. democrat line good morning. caller: yes. i'd like to say social security has no problem. it's welfare that comes out of it and handing out and outs to these people who have never earned any of it. that's where the money is going. not only people like myself and these old guys that are drawing social security. it's not them at all. here in irving, kentucky i can follow them. they get their food stamp card and bye pop with it and sell for it 50 cents on the dollar and take it, the money and go buy drugs and bear and cigarettes and what everything they want. that's what's break social security. not the old people. please do something about that.
7:44 am
host: the president is in thailand the first of a three nation tour before return okay wednesday. also burma and miramar. obama's road there is paved with new asia intentions. we'll focus more on china and just read to you a bit of what peter baker writes in the "new york times". contest is over but the contest with china is only gathering storm. after a political campaign spent talking about how tough he was on beijing the newly elected president departed for the first post election trip. whirlwind swing that's fraught with go o political. later on the program. later we'll focus on hispanic issues with carlos gutierrez and john is on the phone republican line. good morning.
7:45 am
guest: good morning. the social security and medicare doesn't need to be cut because there's 800 billion in our budget every year now. that's part of the 1.1 trillion deficit that president obama is imposing upon us. that 800 billion is part of the stimulus spending and that stimulus spending was supposed to be a one time shot so why is it that 800 billion can't be cut out of the budget? >> okay. thank you for your point. daniel has this point. nothing wrong with social security. medicare is being taken care of with affordable care act. wait until it kicks in to manage it. dod should be cut referring to the defense department. independent line. good morning? caller: good morning. as far as taxes go. why don't they do away with all
7:46 am
the deductions, right? and come up with a flat tax. start like at $20,000, right? you pay 5% and then for every up to 50, and then for every 50,000 after that, come up with a 5% fee. come up with 30% which is $250,000 and that's basically what i'm thinking. >> thanks for the call. from the "new york times" book review. photograph of one of those iconic photographs of the kennedy family with joseph kennedy and rose in a new book out called the patriarch reviewed by christopher buck lee in the "new york times" book review. looking at what some of you may be. bill o'reilly. lincoln bio rylie is number three. bruce is number four. rod stewart's book number five
7:47 am
and the generals is number six. tyrone from philadelphia. welcome to the "washington journal". aarp saying don't raise social security? what do you think? caller: yes. good morning. they're only voting membership. i would like to know how would any politician that's down in washington be able to vote to up the age of social security, when you know in 2014, that everyone of them that vote on social security. i predict this will lose their seats. anyone of them that vote against social security will lose their seats because seniors will vote heavy. the same way they lost florida, they'll lose florida in a bigger vote in 2014 because no retirement person will touch that. host: okay. paul clemens said just because
7:48 am
people are living longer doesn't mean they can work longer. before leaving for asia the president delivering the weekly address and weighed in on the fiscal cliff and what it means for the taxi sue. here's more from the president's address. >> when it comes to taxes there's two paths available. one says if congress fails to act by the end of the of year. everyone's taxes automatically go up including the 98% of americans that make less than $250,000 a year. you can't afford that right now and nobody wants that to happen. the other path is for congress to pass a law right now to prevent a tax like on the first $250,000 of anyone's income. all-americans including the wealthiest get a tax cut and 98% of americans and all small business owners won't see income
7:49 am
taxes go up a single dime. the senate has already passed a bill like this. democrats in the house are ready too. all we need is for republicans to come on board. we shouldn't hold the middle class hostage while congress debates tax cuts for the wealthy. let's begin to work on doing what we greed on. keep keeping tax low and give family and businesses some good news going into the holiday season. i know these challenges won't be easy to solve but we can work together. that's why friday. i had a constructive meeting and while we may have our differences we need to come together and find solutions and take action as soon as possible. because if anything, that's the message i heard loud and clear.
7:50 am
>> president in weekly address. before we shift to immigration. let me go back to klein in the "washington post". these are 2009 numbers and 2012 and 13 in the federal budget. 68% of the federal budget entitles medicare. social security and defense. 32% is everything else. well january has this point on her twitter page and says there won't be cuts to the military. too many have business in their states that depend on government buying their stuff. ken from charlotte, north carolina republican line. goom to you. caller: hi. this is ken. now i'm on social security. i'm 70 years old and it's worked great for me. my complaint right now is the fact that aarp is complaining
7:51 am
about price increases when they're increasing or decreasing the amount of money that they pay benefits for like my drug plan that i have through aarp. they keep reducing and eliminating drugs the kind you need when you're old, and i don't understand. i think they're hypocrites and it's - i don't understand why they are you know complaining at one end and then doing what the government is doing on their end. host: ken, thanks for the call from north carolina. in a couple of minutes we'll turn to the issue of immigration and be joined by former ceo of kellogg and the george w. bush administration carlos gutierrez and justin reuben was a one of the people from
7:52 am
c-span radio studio. good morning. >> good morning. you're right. fiscal cliff is one of the issues talked about on network t.v. talk shows including the situation in the middle east and national security issues and you can hear all those shows re-aired beginning at noon with nbc's meet the press. welcome lindsay grahm. member of the senate arms service and senate intelligence chair. diane feinstein and republican representative. hear abc this week re-aired. yesterday includes nancy pelosi and homeland security chair. republican peter king as well as armed services committee chairman, karl eleven. hear fox news sunday.
7:53 am
chris wallace sits down with the vice-chairman of the senate committee and senator joe lieberman of homeland security and republican government force bobby general dl. followed by candy controly and illinois candidate dick during ben and carlos gutierrez. dick dashen. shows are brought to you by the networks and c-span. re-airs begin at noon with meet the press, 1:00, abc's this week. fox news sunday. cnn state of the union at 3:00 and face the nation from cbs. listen to them all on c-span radio 91 fm.
7:54 am
xm satellite channel 119. listen on your i-phone, blackberry or android. on truman had two big puzzles in his life. first was, this is a man that got in politics having failed in many businesses as a young man. and the only way to get in politics in missouri was to be part of a machine. there were two of them and he looked up with the pender gast machine arguably the most corrupt and often vicious machine. i said how did this happen? how could he work in this machine in local politics? that was the first thing i had to work out. the second of course is what we all know about and that is how did he come to use the atomic
7:55 am
bomb? what was behind the decision? what's the story about the atomic bomb before he became president? and then when the decision was on his desk. it's still a controversial story and i wanted to know more about it. >> from his early life through his presidency. we look at the life of harry truman in, citizen soldier tonight at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. >> "washington journal" continues. >> joining us from miami is bush administration and former c o of the kellogg company. guest: thanks for having me. host: you're joining a number of colleagues with a super back focused on immigration. some of the news this weekend. what is it and who's behind it? guest: it's called republicans for immigration reform.
7:56 am
and we are very fortunate to b e tied with charlie speez who created the largest pack for governor romney during the campaign. so he is someone who believes in this cause and we're bringing together a very large group of people that will be part of it. but the idea is to raise money and to be able to exercise our free speech and talk about the fact that we support immigration reform, we can't give money to candidates but we can surely talk about issues that you know that correspond to certain candidates in certain districts and regional gones and this is the way to make change. we can't just keep talking about it and can't assume this problem is going to go away.
7:57 am
so i'm very, very pleased to be giving this another shot. because we've tried this before and we have to fix it. it's one of those things that we have to confront and we have to fix. we can't ignore and up until now we've been sort of punting the ball down the road, iing norring it and the situation gets more complex. we're talking about families now. we're not talking about individuals but kids who have been in school who don't know any other country but the u.s. it's time to come to terms with a mistake that a lot of people made. not just one set of individuals, but the laws didn't work. we have immigration laws that go back over a half century. imagine how the world has changed in a have after century? you know, businesses. gladly hired these folks and they came across looking for a
7:58 am
better life and they come here and work 20 hours a day and they contribute to our economy with the only hope of building a better life of having their children one day be engineers and doctors and teachers and essentially looking for the american dream. how republican that is. i'm not saying that that the fact that they cross in an undocumented fashion is the right way to do it, but the zeal and the drive and the ambition and the work ethic is, at the heart of republicanism. >> you played a senior role in the romney campaign and he called self-deportation. looking for result as week and a half ago, was that a mistake and hurt him and the republicans trying to gain back the white house? guest: let me say first off, i didn't come to defend myself, but i don't know where that
7:59 am
statement came from. i don't know who advised governor romney to say that. that was very early on in the primaries and i was a surrogate for governor romney and i did notice, and that he was moderating as he came in the general election in saying a lot of the right things and really understanding from an economic standpoint that this is a necessity. not something to tolerate but something to encourage and think about and to plan strategically. no question that statement of self-deportation came back to haunt the governor all the way to the last day of the again real legislation. because, and that's part of the problem that has been talked about is this crazy primary process where you have to run to the extreme right and say sometimes some very illogical
8:00 am
and outrageous things to get nominated and then you have to run to the center to nominate your stance. the problem is everything is taped and people go back to what you said in the primaries and juxtapose that with the general election and it's a crazy system and the irony is, it is being controlled by what i believe is a minority of the party. because we are a country. we're center right and democrats say we're center left. but we're center. and anytime someone goes to extremes, i think they create fear in the american people and i think that that statement created fear in hispanic community and other statements as you well know where there may
8:01 am
be todd ache achnd fear among f. we have to think about how we nominate individuals and we need to understand how the party is positioned.
8:02 am
. host: that is from the new york
8:03 am
times. on both of these points of view, respond. guest: i think he says something very interesting about the shock and awe. let's talk clear. let's get rid of the talking points.
8:04 am
let's talk about what we need to do. the idea that all of a sudden people becoming pro immigration reform, frankly, i do not mind as long as they come through. as long as they believe it. we worked on this as far back as 2006 with the bush administration. we put a lot of time with senator kennedy, rest in peace, and senator kyl and senator gramm and many others who i am sure i am leaving out. senator menendez and martinez who were very much part of this. there are those of us who have always been for immigration reform. so we are not changing. if anything we are stepping it up a little bit. the party is not moving with the
8:05 am
times. this is not being done because we wanted the votes of the undocumented workers who will become legalized. we want immigration because it is a necessity. it is an economic necessity in order to grow and prosper. the 21st century is about competing for human capital. we still compete for investment capital. we are also going to compete for human capital. we should not taken for granted. there will come a point in 10 or 20 years from now when mexico's population slows and their economy grows and we do not have the same source of immigration as we did. we need to understand strategically what this means for our country. canada is doing it better than
8:06 am
we are. australia is doing it better than we are. new zealand is doing it better than we are. we have to step it up and do what we do well. as i said the other day, if we get this right, immigration reform -- not just dealing with the undocumented. that has to be part of it. having a dream act has to be part of it. the challenge is strategically, where do we go? some people think once we take care of the undocumented and legalize them, that is it. we do not talking about immigration anymore. that would be crazy. we need immigrants every single year. we need a strategy to plan the flow. we need to think about what kind of skills we should be encouraging to come to the country. we do not have enough scientists
8:07 am
and engineers. we are forcing companies to build r&d centers in canada. we are forcing farmers to move out of the country. we do not have enough nurses. this is about the strength of our country and our economy. that is why i believe this needs to be a central republican cause. it is not the republican reasons, although i am sure there is a political benefit. it goes beyond that. it is about being competitive in the 21st century. this is about hispanics, asians, west africans, ethiopians, and people from all over the world. they should be participating in this and making our country stronger and bringing vitality and energy and the work ethic that immigrants have always brought to this country.
8:08 am
host: our guest this carlos gutierrez. he is organizing 8 super pac focused on changing the immigration laws in this country. he is the former commerce secretary in the bush administration. the former ceo of the kellogg company. you can set as a tweet. jane is on the phone from the republican line. caller: my question is for you, sir, is that you speak about immigration. we have people right here in the united states of america, u.s. citizens, a long with legal immigrants that are here whether they are latino, asian, or whatever -- other nationalities. they are here -- the java
8:09 am
component of it, we do not have enough jobs in the united states of america that paid well enough to have other people coming here from other parts of the world here to work. then we have an educational system here that is not up to par as far as educating the people that are already here. as a republican, we talk about having a small government. if we reduce the size of government, reduce the educational part of our government, how are we able to be competitive in a global economy? host: thank you for the call. guest: i think it is an excellent question. it is interesting that the unemployment for undocumented
8:10 am
workers is very low. i do believe that they do jobs that americans do not do any more. in addition to that, while we have 7.8%, 7.9% unemployment nationally, it varies across regions. it varies across jobs. yes, we have 7.8% unemployment. if you talk to some very high technology firms, they will say, sorry, we cannot find enough specialized mathematician's or specialized engineers or an agricultural worker will say we have 7.9% unemployment but i cannot find enough people to help me take care of my harvest. we have 7.9% unemployment, but we do not have enough people in
8:11 am
the transportation and logistics arena. perhaps high school kids -- high-school graduates do not want to be truckdrivers these days. they do not want to go back to the farm. it is not totally even. there is evidence that suggests very strongly that immigrants actually take up the slack. they do not compete necessarily with jobs already taken. another of many advantages of legalizing is that wages will have to go up. they will have to formally pay taxes, formally pays social security. the system will be level. there is one thing you said that i think at the core of this. i think it is and a wonderful insight. as the government is getting
8:12 am
larger -- and the government is getting larger. the government has grown a four percentage points of gdp in the last four years. our entitlements and welfare systems become more ingrained -- healthcare, the affordable health care act -- we do not want to get to the point where the european union is where people go to a european union country because of the government benefits, because of the welfare and everything else. immigrants come to this country, whether they are documented or undocumented, to work and to live the american dream and to achieve and to look to the future and to own a house and to have their kids go to good schools. they come here for the right reasons. we have to be careful to not turn into a country where
8:13 am
immigrants come for the wrong reasons. i thank you for bringing that up. host: charles from iowa on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. you people can pass all the laws that you wish to pass in this country, but until you are willing to to support the laws, it does no good. if our borders are never sealed, we will never take care of the immigration problem. that is all i have to say about it. guest: may i ask the caller a question? he said "you people." i do not know who you people are. our immigration laws are dysfunctional. they do not work.
8:14 am
they were written for another day, for another time. this is a new century. please look around e. please read some statistics. read the census report. this country is evolving, changing, modernizing, it is getting ready for a new century. we are trying to manage that with laws that are dysfunctional. so we put employers in the position of either hiring somebody who is undocumented or going out of business. i think we can do better as a government. host: what would you say to one viewer who says, you are in the wrong party? guest: not at all. i believe strongly in republican
8:15 am
economic principles. i believe strongly in the power of individuals. i believe strongly that the government should be restricted in size and should be restricted in their intervention into people's lives. just the overall authority of the government in everything we do. that is growing. i believe in small business, i believe in financial success. i love the idea of coming to this country without a penny in your pocket and ending up with a house in beverly hills, california. that is the american dream. that is what i believe is at the heart of republicanism. individual empowerment, individual ownership, individual
8:16 am
responsibility. allow individuals to dream. allow them to go as far as they can. that for me is republicanism. that is why i am a proud republican. we had issues. we have to modernize. we have to be consistent on some things. we have to stop insulting people. i am is still a proud republican. host: the president took issue -- questions on a number of issues including immigration reform, something he promised in his first term and promises to make it a key agenda item. [video clip] >> immigration reform is similar to the past efforts. i think it should include a continuation of the strong border security measures that we have taken. we have to secure our borders.
8:17 am
it should contain serious penalties for companies that are purposely higher and undocumented workers and taking advantage of them. i do think there should be a pathway for legal status for those who are living in this country, not engaged in criminal activity, and are here simply to work. it is important for them to pay back taxes, to learn english, to potentially pay a fine. but to give them the avenue whereby they can resolve their legal status here in this country i think is very important. obviously, making sure that we put into law what the first step we have taken administratively dealing with the dream act is important as well. one thing i am clear about is that young people brought here through no fault of their own, who have gone to school here,
8:18 am
pledged allegiance to our flag, one to serve in the military and contribute to our society, they should not be under the cloud of deportation. we should give them every opportunity to earn their citizenship. host: the president at the white house. based on what the president was saying and looking at the election results and your own past history of the bush administration, the inability to come to terms with immigration, have things changed? will republicans and democrats were together on a compromise? guest: i would hope so. i hope things have changed enough that we have the wisdom to understand that we are talking about strategy, not tactics for 2012. we are talking strategy for the next century. this is for the country. in 2006, the bill was killed.
8:19 am
there are a number of people who talk about this. the bill was killed when harry reid cut off debate. senator kennedy begged him for another 24 hours. both parties have a history here. the irony is that only the last two presidents who have really, really tackled this street on has been president bush, george w. bush and before that president ronald reagan. we have to talk about action. with what the president said, it sounded very logical. he said many of the right things. the one challenge i would have for the democrats, which is
8:20 am
something that we have to -- they need to come to grips with it as well -- is that when i hear, for example, the president talking about immigration, we tend to talk about it as a onetime situation. we secure the border, and then we take care -- we have a path to legalization. we take care of the kids. we have a dream act. we have done it. that is only half of the job, maybe even less. the big challenge is where do we go from here? are our caps big enough? i will give you an example. in agriculture it takes four months to get a permit to work as a temporary worker because you have to go through agencies and bureaucracy. in for months, your harvest is gone.
8:21 am
it does not work for the marketplace. i would like to hear the president talking about where the democrats are also willing to go in the future, and to think about this as an economic, strategic issue, not exclusively a political issue. by and large, what the president was saying is what we tried to do in 2006, plus of a future plan. -- haev a future plan. i would like to see the president take issue. he had the house and the senate. he promised he would do it year one. what we got was a sliver of a patchwork for young students,
8:22 am
for the dream act type students. we still have a lot of work to do. if we are going to going toin this term, the president has to lead not in words but action. this is a tough thing to do. this is the type of compromise -- to get comprehensive immigration reform is the kind of compromise that will result in nobody being happy. everybody has to give a little bit. nobody will be totally happy. that is what compromises. we have to get on it because it is not going away. i applaud his words, i would like to applaud his actions. host: good morning to you from georgia. caller: good morning, sir. my name is claudia.
8:23 am
i do not think he has this lines in sync with the republican party. we believe in self responsibility. i think part of the problem is the spanish speaking media is liberal. they praise the democrats saying they love hispanics. part of the reason why obama when this election was because he passed the dream act a couple of months before the elections. that is why he got the majority of the hispanic vote. the republicans are not in sync with the values -- we actually are in sync. it is just the portrayal of how they are and the democrats winning their votes. host: let me take that one step forward with her.
8:24 am
and this tweet. -- her point and the tweet. guest: yes, sir. host: your response? guest: you want me to name six republicans? first of all, let me just say, there is no bill yet. i am talking about a bill that was 2006 under president bush. i think once again the two sides need to sit down. they need to hash it out. it is not an overnight project. it needs to be hashed out over a couple of months. when that happens, i will be able to name a lot more than six republicans.
8:25 am
let's give the process a chance to work. what we will do as a super pac is give some republicans some cover. give them support to be able to support an issue that can be controversial. do not leave them alone. do not let them take all of the criticism from people who do not agree. your caller, she made a very good point that hispanic values are very similar to republican values. the family is the center of hispanic life. that, i believe, is a republican value.
8:26 am
where i believe we as a party missed it is that we went on quantitative results from polls. we took those very literally. the polls will say, hispanics care primarily about the economy, like everyone else does. immigration is actually further down the list. you will see some polls saying immigration is number 2. some say no. 5 or 6. we took that to mean as long as we talk about the economy, immigration does not matter. but what the quantitative polls do not show is what people feel in their heart and their sole and what they feel when they hear somebody calling the their neighbors, their cousins, their family members, their people
8:27 am
from their community -- when they are called illegal aliens, or when they are called -- they come over here to be criminals when they are insulted. when the sad reality is they come here and live under terrible conditions at the beginning -- hopefully only at the beginning. they work 20 hours a day, contribute to the economy. sure there are exceptions, but i am talking about the great majority of those who come. we cannot assume that we can just stick to the economy and keep on saying the things we do about immigration. it is insulting. i do not think he would go into an irish neighborhood and talk badly and poorly about irish men who came over and had the cross
8:28 am
and had to get here to save their lives because they were dreaming, because they were looking forward, because they were not getting enough to eat. i do not think that would be appreciated. we need to understand that hispanics are the same. there is a sensitivity. the language that some republicans use is explosive. host: a lycia is joining us from miami on the democrats' line. are you with us? caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am calling to say the gop stands for the good old -- party. there are not for immigration reform, they just want to votes. they could care less about latinos, asians or any other race because their party that they utilize mitt romney to run.
8:29 am
now he is nothing to them. that is how they treat any other ways besides caucasian. guest: with all due respect, i believe you are very wrong. i believe you have this issue very mistaken. i was born in cuba. my wife is mexico can. two of my three children were born in mexico. i am an immigrant. i am a political refugee. my whole family accept one of my daughters were born here. please do not say that all republicans hate hispanics and hate immigrants. there are a lot of hispanic republicans. we have a hispanic republican new governor who we are
8:30 am
extremely proud of. we have two hispanic senators, marker rubio and ted cruz, who we are extremely proud of it. we have members of congress. we stand -- i would say we are for immigration for the right reasons, because it is important for our country, not because it is important for the votes. if it were that easy, we could just change the language. that is exactly what is the problem with american politics today. people can make these general statements, these stereotypical statements and brand at a party
8:31 am
in a wrong fashion. having said that, there are members of our party that have not helped. but that is not a majority of the republican party. we are the party of growth, of prosperity, of people coming in with nothing in their pockets and becoming a middle-class member of society in a matter of years. that is what we are all about, the growth and prosperity. cannot be the party of growth and prosperity without being the party of immigration. that we need to understand. host: nafta send our jobs to mexico, but illegal immigration is higher than ever. we have charles waiting, our last caller from maryland. caller: good morning. what i do not understand is they
8:32 am
talk about illegal immigration, which means it is still lawful -- unlawful to come here. if i commit a felony, i commit a fine. these people pay nothing -- i go to jail or pay a fine. these people pay nothing. guest: these people, undocumented workers is what i call them, sir. first of all, i am not sure you are right about the felony. when you cross the border without proper documentation, i believe it is a misdemeanor. no one is talking about an effort that will not have some kind of penalty or some kind of
8:33 am
requirement. folks who will have a path to legalization will go through a background checks. they will most likely have to pay a fine. they will have to come to terms with what they did wrong. this is not the first time we have given amnesty. if you want to call it amnesty, fine. i disagree that it is amnesty. amnesty has become the code word. there are so many code words when it comes to immigration that you can tell where a person is based on their code words. the code word for amnesty is one way to brush off any and initiative, any sort of initiative for reform of the immigration. if you want to call it an amnesty, let's call it amnesty. how many times have we given
8:34 am
group amnesty? we have given amnesty to deserters of war. i am not criticizing that. if you want to say it is amnesty, let's talk about amnesty for people who came here to work hard, to contribute, to receive low wages, to stay out of trouble, to contribute as much as they can so they can be part of the american dream. they chose this country so that they could come and contribute. that is what we are asking for. that is different. please go back in history and look at the annual presidential parties. look at the other amnesty's we have issued and compare the nature of those -- the other amnesties we have issued and compare the nature of those.
8:35 am
host: is there a name for your superpac? guest: it is called republicans for immigration reform. our guests joining us from miami outlining his proposals for immigration during the president's second term. thanks for being with us. guest: it will be the president and congress' proposals. we will give the republicans cover so they can support this important strategic issue. host: coming up in a couple of minutes, we will turn our attention to the progressive agenda. our next guest is justin ruben, the executive director of next, we will turn our attention to china. the president goes to thailand and what the u.s.-china relations will look like. we are back in a moment.
8:36 am
>> for the last nearly half century, the discussion of the assassination has been dominated by two schools of thought, or two faiths. i will briefly describe each of them and how they approach the evidence in the case. there is the church of the lone assassin that insists of walt -- oswald and ruby murdered john f. kennedy for their own reasons. on the other side, we have the church of the grand conspiracy. they are vague about what they think it happened and who is responsible. but they are absolutely convinced there was a large conspiracy, usually involving figures in the u.s. government and a massive cover-up.
8:37 am
s> this weekend on c-span 3' american history tv, 30 years later the questions remain. what happened in dallas? the assassination of john f. kennedy today at 7:30 p.m. eastern and pacific. >> truman had two big puzzles in his life. the first was, this was a man who got into politics having failed at many businesses as a young man. the only way to get into politics in missouri was to be part of a machine. there were two machines. he hooked up with the pendergast machine, which was the most corrupt and often vicious machine. i said to myself, how did this happen? how could he possibly work in this machine in local politics? that was the first thing i had to work out.
8:38 am
the second is what we all know about. how does he come to use the atomic bomb? what was behind the decision? what is the story about the atomic bomb before he became president and then when the decision was on his desk? it is still a controversial story. i wanted to know more about it. >> from his early life through his presidency, a look at the early life of president truman tonight at 8 p.m. on c-span's "q & a." host: joining us from new york is justin ruben, the executive director of, one of the groups meeting with the president. when you talked to the president, what was on his agenda and what is on your
8:39 am
agenda? guest: we were talking about the upcoming fiscal showdown. one of the things the president was clear about -- they asked the details of the meeting to be kept off of the record. i want to honor what the president ask for. the top line thing was the president reiterated his commitment to make sure the bush tax cuts for the rich are not extended. that is a big deal. that is something moveon members have been fighting for for a couple of years now. there is absolutely no way we can afford to give another round of tax cuts to millionaires when we have so many pressing priorities in this country. to have the president say that was a big deal. host: some say it might be people having salaries of $1 million or more who would see an
8:40 am
increase in their taxes. would you like to see it moved to a higher level? guest: we talked to our members about this. they think 250,000 dollars is the right threshold. -- they think $250,000 is the right threshold. the basic bottom line is, the middle-class has been getting squeezed for decades and the financial crisis has made everything worse. there have been cut too many vital programs people rely on. the question is, when are we going to ask upper income americans to shoulder their part of the problem? there is no other way to invest in the country that starts
8:41 am
creating jobs and can unless we actually follow through and do that. the bush tax cuts for the rich are a start. obviously, they are not enough. the president is calling for a lot more than that, for example the buffet will. -- buffett rule, this crazy situation where a millionaire or a billionaire can paid less in taxes than their secretary. we have to make sure corporations and rich folks shoulder their share of the burden. right now, they are paying historically low taxes, much less than they have pain -- been paying in the last six years. we need to fix our failing infrastructure and the things that are obvious in our
8:42 am
communities. host: in the -- on the broader issue, it was friend to this way. in the daily beast it was written, there is one question on the minds of liberals in washington right now. i should say there is one fear -- that president barack obama will give republicans more than they need to accomplish the elusive grand bargain over taxing and spending. your comment. guest: i liked the idea that i only have one thing in my head. that seems like a beautiful states. the president i saw seemed quite clear on the fact that he says he is not going to -- he is going to follow through on what he said in the campaign, which is to make sure the tax cuts for the rich do not get extended.
8:43 am
second is that jobs need to be part of the deal. austerity has not worked. cuts have not worked in europe and they will not work here. what he said in public is that he is not going to balance the budget on the backs of the middle-class and the poor. we need to take him at his word. at the same time, we know there are folks in washington who are looking at this as a chance to make cuts to programs they have been gunning for for decades. they see this as a chance to make cuts to social security and medicare. those things were debated in this election. there is a clear mandate coming from voters not to cut programs for the middle-class or things that folks rely on. it is incumbent on all of us and
8:44 am
progressives and everybody who agrees with this mission that came through in this election. we have to create a political reality with the president can follow through. host: what is and what is its history? guest: we are a progressive group online. 7 million americans. we have doubled in size since the last election. we started during the impeachment by some silicon valley folks who had an idea where you could create a website where you could sign a petition saying, congress should censure the president and move on to the nation's business. they sent it to friends and it was signed by 51000 people within a week. it was people organizing -- it was signed by 500,000 people within a week.
8:45 am
we wanted to make the country more progressive and make the country a better place. host: our guest is justin ruben , the executive director of i want to share with you comments followed by a meeting -- following a meeting at the white house. one of those senate leaders, mitch mcconnell. [video clip] >> we all understand where we are. i can say on the part of my members that we fully understand you cannot save the country unless you have entitlement programs that fit the demographics of the changing america in the coming years. we are prepared to put revenue on the table provided we fix the real problems. most of my members without exception believe we are in the dilemma we are in not because we
8:46 am
tax too little, but because we spend too much. host: the comments of mitch mcconnell. he is not talking about higher taxes but he is talking about revenue. guest: what he said is kind of crazy. we are in the situation we are in because of spending, spending a huge amount on two wars we could not afford. if you look at with the current deficit comes from, it comes largely from the bush tax cuts and also from the short-term impact of a terrible financial crisis, which was caused by the deregulation and the slashing of the rules of financial institutions that the republicans have been in favor for -- favor of in a -- in favor
8:47 am
of for a long time. in the long run, we need to bring down health-care costs. you can see that already. people are basically looking to use this fiscal showdown as a chance to cut the programs people rely on. i think about my in-laws. they are living on social security month to month. they have their veterans benefits. the notion that we are going to say that donald trump cannot pay one single cent more in terms of his tax rates, but we will look at people like my in- laws and say you have to give up some of your prescription medications or not have enough food to eat at the end of the month. that is crazy.
8:48 am
that is why mitch mcconnell's version of what we need to do did not win in this election. we need to follow through. host: we talked about this in our first hour with regard to aarp in terms of not raising the social security age and not touching medicare. this is from the office of medicare -- office of management and budget. 36% -- 32% goes to everything else. $16.20 trillion. what needs to be on the table outside of higher taxes? guest: we cannot cut benefits -- medicare, medicaid, social security benefits. social security should not be part of this conversation. it does need to be reformed in
8:49 am
the long run so that 20 or 25 years down the road we can make sure everybody's benefits are paid. there is no short-term emergency there. host: long term, would you support raising the social security age? guest: our members think people's social security benefits are too low already. when you raise the retirement age, that is essentially a benefits cut. people have pointed out that the argument for that is based on the idea that life expectancy is going up. if you look at people on the lower end of the income spectrum, their life expectancy is going down. many of them are doing manual labor and jobs that are hard to do into your seventies. we have this argument that says, " where lawyers are living
8:50 am
longer so we should raise the retirement age -- corporate lawyers are living longer, so we should raise the retirement age for someone who is working on their feet. once you start taking this stuff apart, it is the most vulnerable who are be asked to take the brunt of this. when it comes to medicare, we have to figure out a way to bring down the cost of health care. long-term, medicare is unsustainable. we are not going to solve that by cutting down on the health care people need. we need to bring down the cost of health care across the economy. cutting benefits is not the way to do that to the it in obamacare, there is a germ of that approach. we need to move further in how
8:51 am
services are paid for in this country. host: john is joining us from a virginia on the democrats line. caller: good morning. people need to realize that the huge deficit was run up on purpose for the purpose of attacking entitlement programs. the reason i called is we need to have some kind of jubilee in reverse for the debt holders to give back some of the tremendous wealth they have accumulated since bush-cheney took over the government. we need to have a tax on increased wealth of wealthy individuals from 2000 until now.
8:52 am
if their wealth has increased at a reasonable rate, they pay no taxes. if their wealth has quadrupled, they need to pay a lot in taxes. we can use that money to pay down the debt. that will stop a lot of defense spending. thank you. we will get a response. guest: it is interesting. there is at least one tax on wealth in this country. that is the estate tax, wealth that is transferred after people die. that is part of this whole fiscal showdown. there are big efforts to make sure that tax is raised. that is a progressive tax that raises important revenue that we need to invest in our communities. there is no question that there has been a level of inequality in this country. hats off to wall street for
8:53 am
bringing this back to the forefront, which is where it should be. income inequality is through the roof. that is not a sustainable situation. it is hurting our democracy. what you see with citizens united, making our elections democratic again, voter kohnke elections, as some people call it, definitely needs to -- voter controlled elections, as some people call it, definitely needs to be part of the compensation. ultimately, the power is held by a tiny fraction of the population. host: what is a reasonable margin of federal income tax rate? do you have a number? guest: a first question would be, for who? for starters, going back to the
8:54 am
rates the rich paid under clinton, which is when we had this huge economic expansion is reasonable. people who are making hundreds of millions of dollars a year can afford to pay more. historically, they always have. we have incredibly low high and marginal rates compared to the whole history of when we have had income taxes in this country. we need to look at that. host: bob is joining us from illinois on the republican line. calm i went to your web site and you have nothing on your -- caller: i went to your web site and you have nothing on your web site about the drone war obama has waged. he gets away with that and being involved in libya.
8:55 am
we do not hear a word about that from you seem partisan and i do not buy your argument. guest: i appreciate the question. peace has been a major issue for our members. the big thing we have been focused on in the last three years has been urging the end of the war in afghanistan. that has been our main focus. i really appreciate the question. there is part of our website that we have built recently called that is the place for anybody can launch a campaign. if it resonates with moveon members, we will launch a campaign. go there and post what you think needs to be done. we test everything that goes
8:56 am
there. we consult with members and ask if this is something we should be doing. it is a way for us to turn more of the leadership of the organization over to the 7 million people in our membership. we encourage you to do that. host: there is a discussion on our twitter page about taxes and tax rates. someone asks why not eliminate all deductions and normalize the tax rate? we have a caller on our independent line. good morning. caller: there is a graph that shows increasing marginal tax rates has no effect on revenue as a percentage of gdp. if you increase capital gains tax rates, revenue actually collected goes down. what you are proposing either has no effect on revenue or hurts it.
8:57 am
you need to do more homework. i have sent you the graph. i think you should show them to the public. it clearly shows that what this gentleman is proposing does not work. it is no plan. thank you. host: thank you, sir. guest: thank you for the graph. i think what you are saying is hottly today. there is the idea of a curve and if your tax rates go past a certain point, revenues start to go down. all of the research i have seen suggests we are not anywhere near that point. there is plenty of room to ask folks who are so well off like donald trump and paris h ilton to do a little bit more.
8:58 am
it is common sense. many of them are literally saying, taxing more. they believe they have more to give. everybody in their situation needs to be asked to do a little bit more and the country would be better off. did lloyd blankfein say that the other day? the reality of the situation is shifting. i cannot think of a better situation than that. he is somebody you, in theory, understands economics. host: from the news conference, the president on the debt and entitlement reform. [video clip] >> we can shape a process where we look at tax reform, which i am eager to do. we can simplify our tax system. we can make it more efficient.
8:59 am
a distorting effect on our economy. i believe we have to continue to take a serious look at how we inform -- reform our entitlements. health care costs continue to be the biggest driver of our deficits. host: there is a response from one of our viewers. democrats are more concerned with punishing successful people with tax code rather than growing revenue. how do you respond to that criticism? guest: i do not think that is true. the basic situation is that we have a country where we have critical needs that are going unmet, huge needs for investment that are not being filled right now. infrastructure is falling apart. other countries are building industries of the future because
9:00 am
of government support for research and development. we have the wind energy production credit promoting jobs at home. it has expired. every community that i know has schools that are falling apart and kids that are trying to read without textbooks. at the same time, we have seen the wealthy paying lower and lower taxes. the whole idea that that is going to create growth that trickles down has been refuted many, many times over by our own experience. the question is, are we going to actually be able to invest in our country again by shrinking the defense budget to something that is reasonable? we are still spending many times more than the whole rest of the world combined. are we going to ask the rich to
9:01 am
pay their fair share? that is something that most americans agree makes sense. it is hard to see getting to a place where we are rebuilding the middle class in this country and people are feeling like they are kids are going to have a better shot than they do instead of the situation we are in where many people feel that things are getting tighter and tougher in most of the country. without everybody doing their fair share. host: michael is joining us from toyota of our democrats line. caller: i have a couple of points and i hope you make them. c-span and places like that will be where the battle is. you are talking rationally to people who cannot respect education. they do not believe in taxes. we have to protect the president. we have a short window. he just got reelected and they
9:02 am
will try to go after him with all kinds of different investigations. . moveon have to be the first line of protection. go off of the cliff. they are trying to talk and say that what we say to them from did not work. let them go through the pain and they will see. thank you. host: thank you, michael. guest: thank you. what you are saying makes the lot of sense. the republicans said their top goal was to make sure the president was not reelected and they were willing to sacrifice the rest of us to make sure that did not happen. i assume politics will continue. when you talk about the cliff,
9:03 am
it is a loaded metaphor. there are consequences to going pass january 1. the political reality totally shifts at the end of the year when you have a huge amount of revenue that kicks in and opens up possibilities. there are cuts that need to be undone and tax hikes we need to give back. it changes the political possibilities. there is nothing that cannot be undone in a week or two weeks' time. the cliff is a way to panic people into accepting a bad deal that otherwise would not pass the laugh test. the crucial thing is, we actually do want to sort these issues out. if on new year's eve republicans are still saying they are going to hold the whole country
9:04 am
hostage and allow these things to kick in rather than accept 1 cent more in higher tax rates on the wealthiest, millionaires and billionaires, what we cannot do is allow republicans to take america hostage again. in that situation, we have to be willing to go past the end of the year. let's all of this stuff in and congress will have to sort it out, the new congress that was just elected on this mandate for a theory economy. we will probably end up with a better outcome. re.all hope to not end of thei it is more of a slope that a cliff. host: from our twitter page -- being wealthy should not be an entitlement to paying lower taxes. dorothy is joining us on the
9:05 am
republican line from texas. your take on all of this. caller: my take is we should not tax the poor at all. as the gentleman just mentioned, his in-laws live on social security. even though they receive $1,000 a month, that is $12,000 a year. even if it were doubled at 24,000. we should not be taxing the poor at all. entitlements are not entitlements. these people spend the money back into the economy. these were burnt to benefits either for social security or for our veterans -- these were earned benefits either for our veterans or for social security. it was not brought up about the hhs mandate.
9:06 am
religious organizations must furnish drug and contraception. you can go to a phone book or the yellow pages and people can get abolish -- abortions and free contraception from any place. that was never mentioned. i cannot know why the democrats never mentioned it, the republicans never mention it and the independents never mention it. host: thank you. your response? guest: i am not sure what hhs regulation you are talking about. i got an e-mail from a woman, a member named amy in massachusetts. she said, i have been working 36 years. i cannot afford to make basic
9:07 am
repairs to my house or to fix my car. i am paying taxes. $20,000 a year. i cannot understand why someone making millions of dollars is paying a lower tax rate than i am. our members understand the reason people are fired up about making sure these bush tax cuts do not get extended because they understand it is coming out of their pockets. i totally agree. host: we will go to ron joining us from florida on the independent line. caller: two things i would like to bring up. one, this thing that the republicans keep saying, that higher tax rates are going to ruin the economy -- i am 64 and
9:08 am
when i grew up the tax rate was 80%. the economy was booming. number two, putting money in the hands of the wealthy does not stimulate the economy. if you want to stimulate the economy, put money in the hands of the poor and the middle class. they will spend that money. consumers are the job creators. if you give the poor and the middle class money, they will spend it. how you get that money to the poor and the middle class? we need federal legislation to override all of these right to work laws in places like florida so that people can have unions. they will make more money. host: thanks, ron.
9:09 am
guest: i was going to say the same thing. historically, the biggest factor in this country in the making sure that people are lifted out of the working class and into the middle class and giving people a living wage has been the labor movement and the right to bargain collectively. attacks on the labor movement and on unions and the right to bargain collectively over the last 30 years are arguably the biggest source of the erosion of the middle-class in this country. it is totally true that if we want to build an economy that is fair and everybody has a shot at a level playing field and people have a reasonable path out of poverty and into middle-class, it is possible to imagine doing that -- it is impossible to imagine doing that without a strong labor movement.
9:10 am
it is a tough fight because the other side is winning right now when it comes to labor rights. there was a missed opportunity when the president took office at the beginning of the last term. this possibility for that lies on all of us for not fighting harder and on the administration. we got out-organized by the other side. everybody deserves democracy on the job. too many people in this country do not have it. that is the reason inequality in this country is going up and people are falling behind. postbank another viewer is saying tax hikes will -- host: another your is saying tax hikes will only hurt the middle class. we have another call. -- have
9:11 am
caller: i have been so frustrated by his campaign and by the president's speech. george herbert walker bush increase taxes. he raised the top rate from 28% to 38%. he put a face out on exemptions for upper income taxpayers. that was on the advice of his chief of staff, john sununu. why isn't your organization using this? why isn't the president say, the republicans raise taxes and the economy began to stabilize and take off. thanks. guest: is a good point. i will say it more. you are totally right.
9:12 am
host: mark from north carolina on the republican line. caller: i am not a republican, but i am a conservative. i told -- i totally reject both arguments from the left and right. they both want to lower corporate tax rates while raising taxes on supposedly individuals and small businesses. the corporations make our regulations. they will write the tax law. it will not benefit the middle class. anybody who believes or tea party republicans is fooling themselves. you can find out more by listening to what simon johnson says, an mit professor. he wrote a book and says, the big banks have captured the state and have the power to
9:13 am
extort money from the government. read it for yourself. thank you. host: just a related note. jim saying president bush read -- raise taxes and bill clinton ran on the worst economy in 50 years. guest: to the last caller, i do not mean to disappoint you. i agree with what you are saying. we do not have a position that we should lower taxes on corporations. there are some democrats saying that. it seemed crazy to me. we desperately need the revenue to kickstart our economy. when you talk about the fact that our government has been captured by lobbyists and corporate interests, when i talk about -- talk to moveon members,
9:14 am
that is the first thing they say. banks have absolutely capture the regulatory process. oil companies have a huge amount to say about what the energy regulations are. you can go right down the list. i totally agree that we have to change how campaigns are financed in this country and the revolving door that allows people to zoom right out of government into lobbying and back and forth. that door should be slammed shut. there are things we need to do to break the ties between corporations and big business and the government that should be serving the people. i will say one small thing. and win are the banks who crashed our economy going to be held accountable -- when are the
9:15 am
banks to craft our economy going to be held the account -- held accountable? that needs to be part of all our agenda for the next four years. they have gotten off scot-free and that is ridiculous. host: a comment from jason. history has proven that we have to revisit unchecked power. we must be involved. we have our last call. good morning. caller: first of all, why is the cultural view of this being ignored? the common american vote is
9:16 am
democratic because people feel like we have been victims of the government and the country. many people feel like this comes from 400 years ago and they want basic equality. secondly, i would like to say how would bringing immigrants into our country and documented this ended back to wherever they come from -- and in undocumented immigrants helping our economy? guest: you are right to focus on who came out and voted in this election. there was a robust compensation and the cause of recent
9:17 am
immigrants make to this country. you had a bunch of people coming out and voting who nobody thought was going to, at least the republicans did not think was going to. the republicans were running on a platform of the exclusion. the question for me is as we look forward are democrats going to deliver on the promise of inclusion? that means the immigration reform and a path to citizenship. one of the things lots of the folks who were coming out and voting or voting on that issue. -- voting were voting on that issue. if you look at the composition of the senate, it is different because of people talking about sexual assault and the ridiculous things republicans was saying about rate.
9:18 am
this is a pattern -- the ridiculous things republicans were saying about rape. this is not an aberration. this is a pattern. can we passed the violence against women act? this is a wake-up call. we have a way to go when it comes to treatment of women and the celts. there was -- women and assault. can we expand the promise of equality and pass the defense of women act and get rid of the defense of marriage act? the question is, are we up to that task? that is a big part of the mandate coming out of this election. what is exciting is the
9:19 am
opportunity to take that mandate and to make it real. host: justin ruben, the executive director of thank you for joining us this sunday. the president traveled to miramar and burma. the big issue this week is the change of power in china. damien ma will join us. from the c-span radio studios, we have the latest. >> the topics include the so- called fiscal cliff, the middle east and national security issues. you can hear all the shows re- aired. on "meet the press," lindsay gramm, dianne feinstein, and
9:20 am
mike rogers, who chairs the house intelligence committee. on "this week," peter king and arms services committee chairman carl levin. chris wallace sits down with saxby chambliss, the vice chairman of the intelligence committee. also, republican governors bobby jindal and scott walker. "state of the union" follows with roy blunt of missouri and carlos the terrorist. at 4 p.m., john mccain and olympia snowe. the sunday morning talk shows re-airing on c-span radio.
9:21 am
they began at 1200 eastern. listen to them all on c-span radio on 90.1 fm in the washington, d.c. area. listen on your but very, enjoyed -- blackbeerry, an droid or iphone. >> they are using a mobile phone to access facebook because they do not have a laptop or pc. in a lot of cases, there is not an infrastructure of media and communications. a lot of americans will meet me and say, facebook is great for costing and seeing with my friends are meeting for lunch.
9:22 am
-- great for gossiping and see what my friends are eating for lunch. in the middle east coming up access to people who have unique information they would not be able to get otherwise. you get a much more meaty story about what facebook means to them. facebookider's view of on thanksgiving just after 12:30 p.m. eastern. later, space pioneers and nasa officials pay homage to neil armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon. >> "washington journal" continues. host: a change in leadership in china. joining us is damien ma.
9:23 am
the new chinese party congress looks to the younger guys for new ideas. what changes can we expect here in the u.s.? guest: since i wrote that, it was revealed on thursday morning that some of the younger guys did not make it into the committee. we will have to wait another five years before they actually get in in 2017. the new guy seems to instantly appealed to the chinese public. he seems to have slightly higher electability. he does bring a bit more credibility because of his own family background. he is considered an princeling. he has political credibility
9:24 am
more than hu jintao. host: i want to read a couple of sentences and get your reaction. if everything in china is going so well, why do so many of its citizens think about moving here? the size of america's decline in china's rise seen to be everywhere. china has continued its meteoric ascent. the manufacturing sector has been eclipsed by chinese factories churning out the iphone. it is only a matter of time before we are all speaking chinese. that was bolstered by the recent presidential campaign. he will not hear that kind of talk in china. the matter how hard you try in china, the gap between rich and poor is widening. the education system is begging for an overhaul. the government is corrupt. do you agree with that sentiment?
9:25 am
guest: that is basically true. what she is talking about is that the chinese elite is voting with their feet. they are concerned about education systems in china. they are concerned about food safety and the environment. the quality of life issues. host: walk us through the new leadership in china. guest: they cut it down by two. let's talk and more decisions. xi jinping will be the head of the military. host: his background. guest: he is to run large coastal provinces -- he used to
9:26 am
run large coastal provinces. he has lineage with mao tse- tung. the person who will be the premier is ranked number two in the party. host: what is his background? guest: he came from a poor province. he has a ph.d. from a famous university in china. he has a solid command of english. he is seen as more of a reformer. host: is there a strong middle- class or is there a disparity between the poor and the wealthy in china? guest: that is the most serious
9:27 am
problem for the leadership to address, social inequality. there are 200 million people are considered middle class. they are demanding an expecting different things from the leadership that they may or may not be able to deliver. host: the president is circling china through southeast asia and not going to china. is that a political message to china? guest: china will see it as such. that has raised concerns from beijing. they see it as in suckling china in some ways. host: this all the rights will there be a change in policy toward taiwan? -- this author rites, -- writes,
9:28 am
will there be a change in policy toward taiwan? is an economic integration has drawn thailand -- guest: there is an economic integration that has drawn toward taiwan. they faced enormous energy and environmental challenges. in consumption has doubled over the last few years. if you go to beijing, it is cloaked in pollution. it has become a quality of life and middle-class issue. there are demands for the government to fix that. host: what is china's population today?
9:29 am
guest: it is 1.3 7 billion people. the country is getting much older than they want. they are not having enough children to replenish the older population. that will be an economic problem going forward. host: how much do we all china as a representative of our debt? guest: it is around $3.30 trillion. 30% or 40% is u.s. treasury or u.s. assets. host: what impact does that have when we negotiate with china on other issues like trade or environmental issues? guest: they do not have that much leverage. they do not want to hold that much debt because the u.s. dollar is still dominant in the world. they are in a bit of a weaker
9:30 am
position. this is why they are trying to diversify their holdings to the euro and other currencies. host: our guest is damien ma. warren is joining us from maryland on the democrats line. caller: i would like to ask caller: china buys up minerals but china does not address racial problems that happened around the world. they are on the sideline with the iran problem and is real problem and they stay on the sideline with the conflicts in africa and the come to this country and there is a problem
9:31 am
with african-americans being pushed aside by hispanics and asians and these groups say they like african-americans but there is no concrete proof. the evidence points to the fact that the asians and the asian nations have a negative opinion of black americans. what is your comment on that? in general, with increased chinese presence around the world, they will have to improve their practices not only on managing local workers in those countries but also improve the social responsibility. they run into problems of local workers in africa and other places, as you know. it chinese investments continues to come to the united states, they will have to reject the social norms and the united states. those things are helpful to improve chinese practices
9:32 am
abroad. i would argue that is something they would have to do. they would have to change their behavior. we should use it as an opportunity to get the chinese to implement best practices. let me follow up on the quality of life issue. you say this host: use say -- guest: health care, just like we have a health care debate, is having their own. the communist party dismantle the entire social welfare system and they are trying to rebuild it. it is becoming increasingly clear that it is an unfunded mandate and they need to put more money into it and do institutional restructuring to make sure people are covered in their health care.
9:33 am
health care is 50 or 60% for many chinese residents. host: if you ask any chinese residents how they view america, all kind of response to you think you would get? guest: they still believe america is the most dominant power generally. they like america but i also think there are increasingly younger liberal nationalists that believe there is a sense that america may be trying to do too much to keep china down. and to prevent them from rising. that is a minority but i would argue, for the most part, chinese citizens in shanghai and beijing would view the u.s. as a freak -- as the most free and
9:34 am
entrepreneurialism the world. host: do chinese children go to school year round? guest: no, they used to have to go on saturdays but they don't have to go on saturdays. host: justin is joining us from texas, democrat line -- caller: i was curious what the implication is and what we can take from the fact that whose intel passed on and the chairmanship of the melon -- that hu jin tao passed on and what is the state of the military? guest: that is a great question. that was one of the bigger surprises coming out of the party congress. he stepped down as his own personal legacy to say he wanted a clean break. he may have wanted to institutionalized some norms. china does not really have that.
9:35 am
it suggests that xi jinping getting the military post right away to consolidate power, that is a positive for the government going forward. most chinese leaders tried to consolidate power but if he can do it faster, that is a better outcome. host: this is the 18th party congress in china but you see this one is different. guest: this is the first time you don't really have an elder statesman who can brokered deals and selected the personal personally. the previous presidents were personally selected. this is the first time you did not have that. as you may have seen, there is a little bit of messiness involving personnel this and other leaders coming in to select who gets what. it turned out ok and finally we are passed it and the initial
9:36 am
messiness turned out to be as expected. host: our guest has spent a number of years in shanghai and beijing and has written for many publications. he is currently the chinese analyst for the eurasia group. anchorage, alaska, good morning. caller: good morning to you. i would comment on your health care agenda. i consider myself a middle-class person in america. because of our health care and lack of being able to obtain health care that is affordable if you are not a union worker -- going to the doctor here and having a baby, [inaudible] the military implications of our demilitarization and mechanization compared to the chinese vast millions of people
9:37 am
in your army and number three, the monetary influence in alaska -- we are so close. we are the first ones on the line. if anything was to happen or any military action happens, we're the first ones to get hit. what is the monetary influence for them trading here or militarily? guest: the chinese are trying to trend down their military. they don't want a force that is roughly 1.3 million people. china has always been a large army in quantity but they want to reduce that size and modernize and emphasize quality. china is trying to switch from a
9:38 am
land power to a more maritime power. is trying to have aircraft carriers, a better navy. those things could potentially create uncertainties in the asia-pacific region that those are two major changes in the military. instead of being so big, they are going smaller. host: i ask you how asians -- chinese view americans. guest: they are probably not a huge fan of obama or romney but i think they still like president obama. the u.s. election was probably the most highest trending topics on the chinese twitter. people sent effusive congratulations to president obama when you want so i think he commands a lot of the electability in the chinese
9:39 am
population. the one thing to watch it is a social media. there are 300 million people on social media and that is roughly equivalent to the entire united states. there are still topics you cannot talk about and it is the center but it has become a much more free-wheeling, almost democratic place to comment and could take the government. host: who is it centered by? guest: government. they raise comments -- a race, and it literally don't let people on. -- they erase comments or they don't let people on. host: are there people monitoring the 300 million tweets or social networks? guest: they have entire offices looking after this.
9:40 am
host: conn., independent line, good morning. you are on the air. turn the volume down on your television set and go ahead. i will put you on hold. let go to pat next and alabama. caller: good morning and thank you. i am very interested in asking about china and the fact they are a communist country. i'm a liberal democrat living in alabama, often called a, a because of my leanings. -- a comedy because of my leanings. -- a commie because of my leanings. you have a middle-class getting poorer just like us and your providing circle social things that you still have not got the kind of things that people expect from the socialist
9:41 am
system. i think it is a big job for china. with the new leaders, it does not sound any different. it sounds like what we are doing here. could you respond to that? guest: i think china, frankly, abandoned pure communism a long time ago. they said we need markets in more capitalistic ideology. they were very pragmatic. that's what china has done for the last 30-35 years. in many ways, the chinese economy and society is converging closer to the west. there is still some ideology there. for the most part, it is very hard for me to call china a communist country these days.
9:42 am
host: andrew is joining us from illinois on our republican line. caller: hi, my question is about free trade. how is china going to implement more free trade? donald trump said you stole 6 million tons from america and you continue to manipulate america, messing up our economy in the process. for example, those jobs could be here but you guys are continuing to screw american over. how will you implement better policies with america or fix your currencies so it is a level
9:43 am
playing field. host: you put a reference to kodak but wasn't that technology train -- changing? are you saying that the chinese people are taking jobs away from americans in terms of photo processing? caller: in general all jobs, china is taking jobs from america. guest: to really discuss this issue, you have to look at the broader context of globalization over the last 10-15 years. for the last decade, china has built a formidable export sector. it is clear that china had 600 million laborers that want to get jobs and they flocked to the cities and i built these huge export hubs.
9:44 am
it is not a surprise that when people searched for lower-cost labor, there was a supply there. i think channel tends to frown on certain trading rules. that is something beijing and washington will continue to discuss and washington will continue to push china on adhering to these trade rules. the currency issue is not that big of an issue anymore for u.s. companies. the bigger issue is how to continue to access markets in china. host: you look at the new brahmi's up election -- the new burmese opposition leader, how does that affect the geopolitical balance in the region? guest: china has traditionally had a strong influence on burma. be tos first stop will burma.
9:45 am
the outgoing premier is right there. the chinese have taken a fairly moderate stance on that. they have said we're not going to make burma an issue. i think that is encouraging. they know they need to moderate their behavior to not make this a huge issue. the burmese push back on china last year when the chinese wanted to get a hydropower plant done but the burmese did not wanted. host: with an eye on the president's travels through southeast asia, tom donelin was speaking about their relations. [video clip] >> getting the relationship right is something we will get right in president obama's
9:46 am
second term. we have taken steps to that this morning in beijing. this has been an intense focus of the administration. the president had 13 face to face meetings with president obama we have built out an extensive set of mechanisms with channels of communication to work on this relationship and i think it has resulted in a positive and constructive relationship. there will be issues but we put in place a superstructure for the way to manage these issues going forward. i spent an enormous amount of time with the chinese leadership and i think we can have put in place the mechanisms to have a productive and constructive relationship and i look forward to working with the new leadership in beijing. host: related to what he was saying, i want to go back to your piece on foreign affairs -- as the u.s. tries to rebalance its strategic priorities and
9:47 am
asia -- explain what that means. guest: it is rebalancing strategic focus on resources. it is a way -- is pointing them away from the middle east. it is clear that u.s. interest in asia is enormous. it is a huge growth area both economically and, obviously, we have many allies of their that would demand more of our attention. in general, that is what is behind this whole rebalancing strategy. host: rick is joining us from ohio on the independent line, good morning. caller: i would like to know whether the gentleman thinks the change in leadership could have a change in cultural genocide that the chinese are inflicting on the tibetans?
9:48 am
guest: i don't think the policy on tibet will change anytime soon. that is a tough issue. many people domestically in china and abroad are working on this issue. i don't see any immediate changes under the new leadership. host: are the roots to that? guest: tibet to them is a court sovereignty issue. they frankly have never had a very inviting policy on tibet. it is the same with jingdao which is a big region with ethnic and charities. those two areas have been particularly tough for beijing and they have taken a hard-line and vela as this is our first -- and view it as this is our territory. host: we talked about taiwan
9:49 am
but kerri has some other countries is interested in -- guest: japan has become a bit of a worst relationship in the near term. we think that relationship will probably be a tough one to result primarily over the island sovereignty issues. there is historical animosity between china and japan. we think the issue will loom pretty large in part because of what i said before with china trying to become a maritime power and that concerns the japanese and we have japanese elections coming up. if there's a shift in japanese politics, it could make it more difficult to solve the relations. host: if richard nixon were alive today, with the relations
9:50 am
be expected -- be what he expected back in 1972 when he normalized relations with china? guest: if he were alive, i think he would be very surprised at the resilience of the bilateral relationship. these countries come from very different histories and very different work ideologies and very different world views but somehow we have been able to establish a relatively stable major power relationship for the past 30-35 years which has been different from the u.s. relationship with the soviet union. that is a testament to policy makers at the top levels in both countries to make sure the relationship continues in a fairly stable fashion. host: mao's legacy? guest: is very mixed. xi jinping said mao was 30% right and 70% wrong.
9:51 am
he does not really represent the mainstream thinking in china, mao. nostalgiaill some mao but i think he is still on the fringes instead of the mainstream. host: go to texas and are democrats line -- caller: nice suit today, steve -- my question is more towards pakistan. it seems like china does not let go of that relationship. other countries are vilifying pakistan that china does not change that relationship. can you speak to that? guest: i think that is a fairly accurate portrayal. china will not really change its relationship with pakistan.
9:52 am
with the u.s. presence leaving afghanistan and southeast asia, i think china will find more difficulties in terms of how to handle that relationship. host: this is a piece that appeared in "the financial times." can you elaborate? guest: the state-sector problem monopolizes many sectors and i have such political power and economic clout. it will take a lot of effort and political will from the top level down because they are very powerful.
9:53 am
they want to go after those interests and continue reform. host: hampton, new hampshire, republican line, good morning. caller: i have a quick question on the chinese attitude toward japan and the south china -- south china sea conflict. why has the chinese strategy changed over the last two years? how has the military modernization been a part of that? why are they believe it -- the paving the way they are now? so long, the strategy was one of non-confrontation. guest: 0 officially, the chinese have not changed rhetorically on their policy. in 2009 after the financial crisis, there was arguments within china among the hawks
9:54 am
that this was the senate's time to be more assertive and be out in front and defend its interests. that did not work. that led to the strategic rebalancing of the u.s. and they got regional powers. since then, they have stepped back from that assertive posture. the reality is that china wants to become a more maritime power and china has never really resolved its maritime sovereignty disputes. this is what's happening now. they have settled their land disputes but not maritime. that will raise concerns for your neighbors. host: guest: that's going to be extremely tough. japan has a security treaty with the united states. they rely to some extent on a u.s. presence there.
9:55 am
that will be a tricky issue ended depends on how the japanese government views its own defense needs. i think we will have to wait to see of the new japanese prime minister will be more right- leaning than the current prime minister and we will see if he wants to change the defense policies. host: tampa, fla., independent line -- caller: in the short term, many things being discussed -- china is behind the united states -- long term -- what do you think the effect economic-wise will be for the united states and china based on the fact that as we go for it, china is staying the course because of how their government is laid out that in
9:56 am
america, we have these elections that changed year to year. long-term, i think china has an easier opportunity to stay the course. how do you feel about the long term? short term is one thing but america was built in a couple of hundred years and 30 years ago, china switched their approach to economics. they have not necessarily caught up on economic level but they are coming. socially, they are more used to going through our ships. with the layout of the government, they should be able to stay the course better. how do you see this playing out long term? guest: china will probably be a burgeoning economy in aggregate gdp terms.
9:57 am
most economists tend to project that. even as they become the biggest economy in total, it is obvious they have four times more people than we do in the u.s. it will take a long time for them to catch up on a per-capita gdp term. you cannot separate the politics and economics. the changes in the economy and development has brought a whole new set of political challenges with the new leadership. if they don't address these changes, the political system will be a big shake here over the next 10 years. host: how would you size up relations with china and what will happen moving forward with
9:58 am
the new leadership? guest: the u.s. relationship? i think we are in for a more challenging first year. we have two transitions and although there is continuity on our side in washington, we still don't know exactly what the old new leadership feels about the united states and their foreign policy. there is an inherent risk on the chinese side. i think we will have a bit of a testier first year. host: thanks very much for adding your perspective on this topic, thank you very much. tomorrow morning, we will begin with a conversation on the debt and deficit and fiscal cliff with david walker at 7:45. he is now the founder and ceo of the comeback america initiative. we will then talk about energy. arabia at about saudi
9:59 am
what it means for energy issues in the u.s. and john and re will talk about cyber-related crimes and how it will be investigated in the future. that is tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. thank you for joining us on this sunday, a holiday week for many of you. enjoy your thighs giving holiday and "newsmakers"coming up next. >> "newsmakers" dunford

Washington Journal
CSPAN November 18, 2012 7:00am-10:00am EST

News/Business. Live morning call-in program with government officials, political leaders, and journalists.

TOPIC FREQUENCY China 61, Us 22, Washington 21, U.s. 21, America 17, Beijing 9, Israel 9, United States 7, Florida 7, Aarp 7, New York 6, Thailand 5, Obama 5, Carlos Gutierrez 4, Mexico 4, Justin Ruben 4, North Carolina 4, Taiwan 4, Kellogg 3, Navy 3
Network CSPAN
Duration 03:00:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 91 (627 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 11/18/2012